Eastern Catholics/Roman Catholics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Silyosha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Silyosha

Guest
This is a silly question, but are Eastern Catholics more synonymous with Eastern Orthodox, or are they simply Roman Catholics who live in the east? Or is it more complicated? I’m very sorry if this is offensive. I haven’t meant anything by it.
 
Most people are not aware that the “Catholic Church” is actually comprised of twenty-three independent Catholic Churches, all in union with the pope. The Western, or Latin Catholic Church, is so large, however, that many people, even Catholics, are completely unaware of the other twenty-two churches, which make up the Eastern Branch. (Some have from only a few thousand members to a few million.)

Originally, there was only one denomination… the Catholic Church (the word Catholic meaning “universal”). However, there were five cities that early on were singled out as being important centers of Christianity. They were Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and of course, Rome. Each developed its own unique traditions and liturgy, but ALL shared a common theology and were in communion with each other and the Bishop of Rome, known as the Pope. However, about 1000 years ago, due to a variety of unfortunate problems, the other four cities, allied with the Byzantine Empire, mutually broke off from Rome, forming the various Eastern Orthodox Churches. Although doctrinally, they are virtually identical to Catholics, they refuse to acknowledge that the pope is more than a “first among equals”. (A couple groups broke of much earlier in the 400s AD also, to form what are known as the Oriental Orthodox Churches).

What has happened is that over time, some portions of each of the various Orthodox groups have decided to reconcile with the Catholic Church and come back into communion with Rome. When they do, they are allowed to keep all of their traditions and much of their independence, although they acknowledge the authority of the Pope. They become truly Catholic, in that anyone from ANY branch of the Catholic Church can participate in the liturgy and ceremonies of any OTHER branch of the Catholic Church. The only two Eastern groups that never fell out of communion with the Catholic Church were the Maronite Catholic Church, and the Italo-Albanian Catholic Church. So… for every branch of the Orthodox Churches that are NOT in communion with Rome, there is a corresponding and virtually identical branch of the Eastern Catholic Church that IS in communion with Rome. Since their customs and liturgies date from before the Council of Trent, they are allowed to remain.

The following liturgies are used by the Eastern Catholic Churches:
  • The Liturgy of St. Basil
  • The Chaldean Mass
  • The Order of the Divine and Holy Liturgy of Our Father Among the Saints Gregory the Theologian (or Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts)
  • The Liturgy of St. James
  • The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom
  • The Liturgy of St. Mark
  • The Holy Qorbono
continued…
 
Here is a listing that includes EACH of the twenty-three Catholic Churches in union with the Pope. Do not confuse “churches” with “rites”. A rite is a series of traditions, that includes different customs and liturgies. Several different churches may use the exact same rite. A Church has its own rules and separate line of authority to the Pope. It may also have a figure in charge, like a Metropolitan or a Patriarch (like an Archbishop), since these churches are generally very small and work very hard to preserve their unique traditions. The major rites are the Latin, Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian, Chaldean, and Byzantine.

**The Western (Latin) Catholic Church

Latin liturgical tradition**
  1. Ordinary Form (This is the form of the Mass that you will find in virtually every Latin Catholic Church almost every day of the week. This Mass has existed since the mid-1960s, ever since reforms were made following the Second Vatican Council.)
  2. Extraordinary Form (This is the form of the Mass that was used in virtually every Latin Catholic Church from the Middle Ages until the mid-1960s. It may still be said in Catholic Churches should a priest choose to use it. Some of the differences from the Ordinary Form include the exclusive use of the Latin language (except for the homily), the receipt of Communion exclusively on the tongue and kneeling, the priest facing the same direction as the people (toward the altar and God) so he can lead the people in prayer, no lay participation on the altar, and usually, no responses by lay people.)
  3. Ambrosian Rite (Only permitted in the Archdiocese of Milan)
  4. Mozarabic Rite (Only permitted in the Cathedral of Toledo, Spain and a few surrounding churches of the diocese)
  5. Bragan Rite (Only permitted in the Archdiocese of Braga, Portugal)
  6. Anglican-Use Mass (This form was once only permitted in the extremely rare circumstance in which an Anglican priest converted to Catholicism and brings his entire parish with him. In that event, a parish could continue to use the Anglican liturgy, with corrections to make it conform with Catholic teachings. It was originally meant as a transitional liturgy, and upon the death of the pastor, the church would revert to the Ordinary Form. With the recent provisions announced by the Vatican to allow Anglicans into the Catholic Church and keep their traditions, it seems that the Anglican-Use will now become both far more widespread AND permanent.)
Rites of Religious Orders
  1. Dominican Rite
  2. Carthusian Rite
  3. Carmelite Rite
  4. Cisternian Rite
Note: Technically, the forms of the Latin liturgy listed above are NOT different rites, but variations of the SAME rite, although people do tend to commonly use the term somewhat erroneously in this context. The differences between the Latin “rites” are FAR less than those between the Latin liturgy and any of the Eastern Rites.)

**The Eastern Catholic Churches
  1. Alexandrian liturgical tradition**
  2. Coptic Catholic Church (patriarchate): Egypt (1741)
  3. Ethiopian Catholic Church (metropolia): Ethiopia, Eritrea (1846)
    2. Antiochian (Antiochene or West-Syrian) liturgical tradition
  4. Maronite Church (patriarchate): Lebanon, Cyprus, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Argentina, Brazil, United States, Australia, Canada, Mexico (union re-affirmed 1182)
  5. Syriac Catholic Church (patriarchate): Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Palestine, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, United States and Canada, Venezuela (1781)
  6. Syro-Malankara Catholic Church (major archiepiscopate): India, United States (1930)
    3. Armenian liturgical tradition:
  7. Armenian Catholic Church (patriarchate): Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Palestine, Ukraine, France, Greece, Latin America, Argentina, Romania, United States, Canada, Eastern Europe (1742)
    4. Chaldean or East Syrian liturgical tradition:
  8. Chaldean Catholic Church (patriarchate): Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, United States (1692)
  9. Syro-Malabar Church (major archiepiscopate): India, Middle East, Europe and America.
    5. Byzantine (Constantinopolitan) liturgical tradition:
  10. Albanian Greek Catholic Church (apostolic administration): Albania (1628)
  11. Belarusian Greek Catholic Church (no established hierarchy at present): Belarus (1596)
  12. Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church (apostolic exarchate): Bulgaria (1861)
  13. Byzantine Church of the Eparchy of Križevci (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro (1611)
  14. Greek Byzantine Catholic Church (two apostolic exarchates): Greece, Turkey (1829)
  15. Hungarian Greek Catholic Church (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): Hungary (1646)
  16. Italo-Albanian Catholic Church (two eparchies and a territorial abbacy): Italy (Never separated)
  17. Macedonian Greek Catholic Church (an apostolic exarchate): Republic of Macedonia (1918)
  18. Melkite Greek Catholic Church (patriarchate): Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Jerusalem, Brazil, United States, Canada, Mexico, Iraq, Egypt and Sudan, Kuwait, Australia, Venezuela, Argentina (1726)
  19. Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic (major archiepiscopate): Romania, United States (1697)
  20. Russian Catholic Church: (two apostolic exarchates, at present with no published hierarchs): Russia, China (1905); currently about 20 parishes and communities scattered around the world, including five in Russia itself, answering to bishops of other jurisdictions
  21. Ruthenian Catholic Church (a sui juris metropolia, an eparchy, and an apostolic exarchate): United States, Ukraine, Czech Republic (1646)
  22. Slovak Greek Catholic Church (metropolia): Slovak Republic, Canada (1646)
  23. Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (major archiepiscopate): Ukraine, Poland, United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Germany and Scandinavia, France, Brazil, Argentina (1595)
 
Thank you so much for your replies. They are very helpful. So, am I right in saying that the Eastern Catholics DO believe in Peter’s primacy and the papal doctrines? And this is what separates them from the EO churches, mainly?
I find it interesting that there are as many different rites in the CC that there are. I was certainly aware that there was more than 1 rite, but I had no idea there were so many! Which is the 2nd largest, next to the Latin rite?
 
Rolltide said:
Originally, there was only **one denomination… the Catholic Church **(the word Catholic meaning “universal”)…However, about 1000 years ago, due to a variety of unfortunate problems, the other four cities, allied with the Byzantine Empire, mutually broke off from Rome…
Click to expand...
That would be catholic, not Catholic. There was one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. The Catholic Church got its name following the so called Great Schism, as did Orthodoxy come to be called that. Your assumption is that the Orthodox “broke off from Rome”. However from the Orthodox perspective it was “Rome” which split from the one church, what became called Orthodoxy. From the Orthodox perspective if you look at the time line of the Church from the time of Christ forward to today the straight horizontal line is labeled Orthodoxy and the line that shoots off with the so called Great Schism is the Catholic Church, followed by the many schisms coming off the Catholic Church branch beginning with the Reformation.

I don’t know I’d agree with some other aspects of your description of the history but these two issues are the only things I want to comment on. 🙂

Our Orthodox brothers and sisters can correct me but I do not think that Orthodox would use the term a “denomination” for Orthodoxy. Nor would I consider the Catholic Church a denomination. We are both, in the eyes of the Catholic Church wholly apostolic.
 
Rolltide said:
**The Western (Latin) Catholic Church

Latin liturgical tradition**
  1. Ordinary Form (This is the form of the Mass that you will find in virtually every Latin Catholic Church almost every day of the week. This Mass has existed since the mid-1960s, ever since reforms were made following the Second Vatican Council.)
  2. Extraordinary Form (This is the form of the Mass that was used in virtually every Latin Catholic Church from the Middle Ages until the mid-1960s. It may still be said in Catholic Churches should a priest choose to use it. Some of the differences from the Ordinary Form include the exclusive use of the Latin language (except for the homily), the receipt of Communion exclusively on the tongue and kneeling, the priest facing the same direction as the people (toward the altar and God) so he can lead the people in prayer, no lay participation on the altar, and usually, no responses by lay people.)
Click to expand...
Just to clarify that those would be the Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite of the Latin Church. 🙂

I also only recently learned that the Sarum Rite still has those who celebrate it, in Catholic and in Orthodox (ROCOR) churches.
 
5Loaves said:
Our Orthodox brothers and sisters can correct me but I do not think that Orthodox would use the term a “denomination” for Orthodoxy. Nor would I consider the Catholic Church a denomination. We are both, in the eyes of the Catholic Church wholly apostolic.
Click to expand...
I’m not very interested in getting involved in the rest of this discussion, but I’ll answer this. To my mind, “denomination” is a protestant thing, and therefore does not apply to any non-protestant churches, although I have heard the term used to denote Orthodox juristictions by people who were Orthodox, it is a pretty rare term.
 
\Thank you so much for your replies. They are very helpful. So, am I right in saying that the Eastern Catholics DO believe in Peter’s primacy and the papal doctrines? And this is what separates them from the EO churches, mainly?
I find it interesting that there are as many different rites in the CC that there are. I was certainly aware that there was more than 1 rite, but I had no idea there were so many! Which is the 2nd largest, next to the Latin rite? \

**The proper term is not “rite” but “sui juris Church.” The 22 or so Eastern sui juris Churches practice about a half dozen different rites (or liturgical families).

The largest sui juris Church after the Latin Church is the Ukrainian Catholic Church, which uses the Byzantine liturgy.

Something else–Eastern Catholics are more than just Roman Catholics who say mass funny. They have entire spiritual and theological patrimonies that is quite different from anything in the West.

Eastern Catholics seek to maintain these spiritual patrimonies (which is identical to their Orthodox counterparts) in communion with–not under–the Pope. This is the condition of things before the various separations.

Alas, too many Latin Catholics (as can be seen in other fora here) see the issue only in terms of submission to the Pope–which won’t accomplish a single thing.

**
 
bpbasilphx said:
**The proper term is not “rite” but “sui juris Church.” The 22 or so Eastern sui juris Churches practice about a half dozen different rites (or liturgical families).

The largest sui juris Church after the Latin Church is the Ukrainian Catholic Church, which uses the Byzantine liturgy.

Something else–Eastern Catholics are more than just Roman Catholics who say mass funny. They have entire spiritual and theological patrimonies that is quite different from anything in the West.

Eastern Catholics seek to maintain these spiritual patrimonies (which is identical to their Orthodox counterparts) in communion with–not under–the Pope. This is the condition of things before the various separations.

Alas, too many Latin Catholics (as can be seen in other fora here) see the issue only in terms of submission to the Pope–which won’t accomplish a single thing.

**
Click to expand...
Very nicely stated. One quick thought, I wonder how many Eastern Catholics though would not necessarily describe themselves as “having an entire spiritual and theological patrimonies that is quite different from anything in the West,” as opposed to seeing themselves as having patrimonies that are complementary to the patrimony of the Latin West and not mutually exclusive. Same faith - just certain different emphases towards the same theological concepts. Anyway, this is where choosing each word gets tricky and my eyes are blurry. So don’t hold me to anything.🙂
 
5Loaves said:
That would be catholic, not Catholic. There was one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. The Catholic Church got its name following the so called Great Schism, as did Orthodoxy come to be called that.
Click to expand...
I would disagree with you here. The first reference we have to the “Catholic Church” as a term for the single, universal version of Christianity was in 110 AD by St. Ignatius of Antioch. There are many references in the Early Church Fathers that use this title as well.

Here’s the actual quote:
“See that ye all follow the bishop, ,even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God…Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 8)”
Your assumption is that the Orthodox “broke off from Rome”. However from the Orthodox perspective it was “Rome” which split from the one church, what became called Orthodoxy. From the Orthodox perspective if you look at the time line of the Church from the time of Christ forward to today the straight horizontal line is labeled Orthodoxy and the line that shoots off with the so called Great Schism is the Catholic Church, followed by the many schisms coming off the Catholic Church branch beginning with the Reformation.
Click to expand...
Actually, that’s NOT what I meant, but I would agree that I phrased the sentence poorly. I’m well aware of the Orthodox position, and I was meaning to suggest that both sides (Catholic and Orthodox) mutually split from each other in order to be diplomatic, but I guess I’ll have to try harder next time, since my intent was to avoid this exact debate.
Our Orthodox brothers and sisters can correct me but I do not think that Orthodox would use the term a “denomination” for Orthodoxy. Nor would I consider the Catholic Church a denomination. We are both, in the eyes of the Catholic Church wholly apostolic.
Click to expand...
Nor would the Catholic Church or the pope agree with the use of the term denomination, since it considers ANY group with true Apostolic Succession and the Real Presence as a true “Church”. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that before the Great Schism (and of course, the breakoff of the Oriental Orthodox much earlier) that Christianity was united as a single body, and that it split into several “Churches” that fell from communion with each other during these events. I could also mention something like “Despite being true “Churches”, each side felt that there were deficiencies in the other that were serious enough to imperil salvation”, or something like that. Then, continuing on, I could state that the much more serious event of the Reformation caused splits resulting in denominations that were not even true “Churches”.

I’m certainly willing to take suggestions to make my answer more accurate. I have this one saved and use it from time to time because it comes up SO much.
 
5Loaves said:
Just to clarify that those would be the Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite of the Latin Church. 🙂

I also only recently learned that the Sarum Rite still has those who celebrate it, in Catholic and in Orthodox (ROCOR) churches.
Click to expand...
A good correction, thank you.

If I’m not mistaken, however, isn’t the Sarum Rite suppressed within the Catholic Church? I think it can be said with permission as a sort of “living history Mass” perhaps, but I don’t believe it can be regularly offered anywhere anymore. Anyone?
 
bpbasilphx said:
\Thank you so much for your replies. They are very helpful. So, am I right in saying that the Eastern Catholics DO believe in Peter’s primacy and the papal doctrines? And this is what separates them from the EO churches, mainly?
I find it interesting that there are as many different rites in the CC that there are. I was certainly aware that there was more than 1 rite, but I had no idea there were so many! Which is the 2nd largest, next to the Latin rite? \

**The proper term is not “rite” but “sui juris Church.” The 22 or so Eastern sui juris Churches practice about a half dozen different rites (or liturgical families).

The largest sui juris Church after the Latin Church is the Ukrainian Catholic Church, which uses the Byzantine liturgy.

Something else–Eastern Catholics are more than just Roman Catholics who say mass funny. They have entire spiritual and theological patrimonies that is quite different from anything in the West.

Eastern Catholics seek to maintain these spiritual patrimonies (which is identical to their Orthodox counterparts) in communion with–not under–the Pope. This is the condition of things before the various separations.

Alas, too many Latin Catholics (as can be seen in other fora here) see the issue only in terms of submission to the Pope–which won’t accomplish a single thing.

**
Click to expand...
Also good points. I’ll see about incorporating those suggestions into my summary.
 
Rligion is ******** you fukken cunts learn to use science, if god did exist HE WOULD BE A TROLL *****
 
A_Fukken_Troll said:
Rligion is ******** you fukken cunts learn to use science, if god did exist HE WOULD BE A TROLL *****
Click to expand...
As a university professor and professional scientific researcher, let me compliment you on your well thought out response and impeccable grammar. You’ve completely won me over to your brilliant reasoning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top